Make companies responsible for the waste they produce in WA

Two bills before the Legislature aim to increase Washington’s stagnant recycling progress. Despite significant efforts by local governments to boost recycling programs over the years, only 40% of all packaging and paper is recycled in Washington. By any measure, that is not the mark of a “robust” system. To make matters worse, cities and residents are paying for this increasingly expensive service.

Only one bill, House Bill 2049, or the ReWRAP Act, addresses the key issue undermining local governments’ best efforts to improve our recycling rate — the lack of responsibility on the part of companies that make packaging and paper products. Requiring companies that create and distribute packaging to pay for processing the waste they produce is known as extended producer responsibility, and is nothing new. Western Europe has had EPR for packaging for decades; our neighbor to the north, British Columbia, also has EPR for packaging — paid for by the same companies that sell the products lining your fridge and pantries. Shouldn’t they be held accountable in the U.S. as well? State legislators in California, Colorado, Maine and Oregon thought so and passed laws around EPR for packaging in the last two years.

The other bill being considered this session, HB 1900, sets a nonbinding recycling goal of 60% for consumer packaging and paper. But unlike HB 2049, it won’t increase access to recycling and it won’t hold producers accountable for the costs of managing their packaging waste. In short, it’s just more of the same.

We understand that the EPR approach is a big change for our state. But we can’t expect a different outcome by doing the same things we’ve always done. Our experience with the state’s existing 50% recycling goal is that we can’t meet it without making real changes to how recycling programs are organized and funded. A study commissioned by the Legislature last year found that the types of policies included in HB 1900 — truth in labeling, statewide collection list, and recycled content requirements — would increase the recycling rate in our state by only 1%. In contrast, combining these policies with EPR is estimated to increase recycling in Washington by 26%. That’s why the ReWRAP Act includes these policies along with EPR.

In fact, EPR is recognized as a central policy tool for funding and improving recycling by the United Nations and the 170 countries engaged in negotiations on a global treaty to curb plastic pollution.

Proponents of HB 1900 suggest that a study should be done first before putting producers on the hook for paying to support the recycling of their products. But we don’t need another study to point us in the right direction — every state study in recent years points to EPR for packaging as the solution to modernize our recycling system and achieve the highest greenhouse-gas emissions reductions. The public agrees: 72% of survey respondents agree that producers should take responsibility for their packaging. The ReWRAP Act requires an extensive needs assessment and allows five years before the policy goes into effect to allow for adequate preparation.

We ask the Legislature to support a meaningful approach to recycling reform this session rather than continue to kick the can down the road.